Thinking about it, the paper more related to your interrogation is probably this one
Bernheim, D., and A. Rangel. 2009. "Beyond revealed preference: choice theoretic
foundations for behavioral welfare economics". Quarterly Journal of Economics 124, no.
1: 51-104.
If I remember correctly, the idea is to use the part of preferences where there are no ambiguities. From this they get back versions of compensating variation (equivalent variation), consumer surplus etc.. It is pretty clever.

Anyone who has taken Econ 1000 learns that restricting soda consumption creates a deadweight loss: At the price shown, consumers would like to buy Q2 units of soda. A ban on extra-large sodas restricts their consumption to Q1 units. At point Q1, consumers would like to buy larger sodas, and f...

Marc Fleurbaey has at least two papers that I know off on this issue. The first one that comes to mind is the one where people make bad choices and regret those choices afterwards. The paper is called "Freedom with forgiveness" (http://ppe.sagepub.com/content/4/1/29.abstract).
I saw a new one presented in Marseille that is more in line with social choice and standard welfare economics called "Behavioral Fair Social Choice" (http://ideas.repec.org/p/hka/wpaper/2012-012.html). It applies the Fair social choice developped by Fleurbaey and Maniquet to the issue of behavioral economics. It is pretty interesting. In this case what the planner cares about his fairness and resource equality and not so much on happiness and health per se.

Anyone who has taken Econ 1000 learns that restricting soda consumption creates a deadweight loss: At the price shown, consumers would like to buy Q2 units of soda. A ban on extra-large sodas restricts their consumption to Q1 units. At point Q1, consumers would like to buy larger sodas, and f...